[Dr Orloff]

If a larger sensor fits in the Q and the lenses can cope with it why didn't they put one in there in the first place.

I don't want a new body, I just want a wide angle prime.

[jva59]

I'm a recent Q owner, and I'm having a blast with it.

I'm happy that there is a newer, better Q body that will provide a logical upgrade once this Q gets destroyed, lost/stolen, or otherwise becomes incapable of delivering what I want it to. I will have lenses and accessories for it, and I will be familiar with its operations.

Great news overall. That yellow one looks slick.

My view precisely!

[arnold]

Those figures are not sensor sizes, even though they're related. Just Google search for "sensor sizes" and you'll get plenty of results, relevant charts and explanations.
For example, 1/2.7" is, and 1/1.8" is 7.20x5.35mm with a 9mm diagonal.

I still don't understand the meaning of even though the "~5.37x4.04mm with a 6.72mm diagonal" is perfectly clear. What is "1/2.7" meant to convey if not the actual measurement of the sensor?

[Aristophanes]

If a larger sensor fits in the Q and the lenses can cope with it why didn't they put one in there in the first place.

I don't want a new body, I just want a wide angle prime.

In reverse order.

Wide angle and small sensor are contradictions.

Hoya was cheap with the Q. They thought people would buy into a "toy" system camera as their mirrorless.

Which is pretty much how Hoya/Pentax viewed mirrorless compared to DSLR.

Uh-oh. Now let's see if a slightly larger sensor will do the trick. But we'll still sell it at the same price which is more expensive compared to their larger sensor cousins?

[crewl1]

What is "1/2.7" meant to convey if not the actual measurement of the sensor?

I figure it is a little smaller than 1/2 inch but a little bigger than 1/3 inch measured diagonally.

Is this correct?

By this logic a 1/1.7" sensor is a little bigger than 1/2 inch but not quite a full inch when measured diagonally.

[vonBaloney]

The numbers like 1/1.7 have basically no modern meaning (it has to do with old TV tubes from many decades ago) and tell you nothing (directly) about the dimensions. They seem to use the standard to deliberately make you think you're getting a bigger sensor...

[Uluru]

I call Troll on Aristophanese right here, right now. ...
I'm really getting tired of bing ":nudged" to make "better" decisions by all the Behavioral Economists.

Likewise. Aristophanes is trolling like mad re Q.
I remember, when I started my art course, I was fed to the teeth I should get premium sable brushes, Arches paper, Belgium linen, Conte crayons, W&N watercolour paints, Old Holland oils paints, etc. ... Or I won't be a good painter.
Ehh, really?

And I ended up paining with much cheaper but more durable squirrel brushes, locally made paper, different crayons, cheaper but same quality paints, etc. And the finished paintings and drawings looked to me same, or, even better, because they suited me.

You see, traditional art stuff and digital photography, but same baloney sold over and over again.

I missed nothing, saved a lot of money, and learned along the way how to look outside the box. And in the art course, as in photography, that is the behaviour and thinking you must learn yourself in order to create something truly valuable.

Or you end up being a dumb consumer ruled by numbers.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 06-10-2013 at 05:27 PM.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

It seems to me that the sensor size is a nice upgrade, and would really make a difference if a few other system aspects could be improved, such as the sensor scan rate could be hiked to something like 1/60th, and the lowest ISO dropped to 80 ISO with no smoothing as an option. At that point, you would have a serious lightweight field camera (especially if an electronic viewfinder was made available).

[johnmflores]

In reverse order.

Wide angle and small sensor are contradictions.

Hoya was cheap with the Q. They thought people would buy into a "toy" system camera as their mirrorless.

Which is pretty much how Hoya/Pentax viewed mirrorless compared to DSLR.

Uh-oh. Now let's see if a slightly larger sensor will do the trick. But we'll still sell it at the same price which is more expensive compared to their larger sensor cousins?

Thank heavens that human beings aren't rational creatures, otherwise we'd all be driving silver Toyota Camrys and wearing sensible shoes.

Sales figures be damned, I'll take a Q, a red convertible, a pretty woman (my wife), a pair of flip-flops, and the afternoon off.

[VisualDarkness]

One funny thing about improving the electronic shutter is that they are also decreasing the need for the official Q-K adapter. If the electronic shutter would sync up to something like 1/200 it would be quite useful even for handheld tele work.

[crewl1]

The numbers like 1/1.7 have basically no modern meaning (it has to do with old TV tubes from many decades ago) and tell you nothing (directly) about the dimensions. They seem to use the standard to deliberately make you think you're getting a bigger sensor...

Boooo! Not cool

Tks

[arnold]

The numbers like 1/1.7 have basically no modern meaning (it has to do with old TV tubes from many decades ago) and tell you nothing (directly) about the dimensions. They seem to use the standard to deliberately make you think you're getting a bigger sensor...

Thanks for that; I try to make sense of what I read, and this didn't make sense.

[RobA_Oz]

Thanks for that; I try to make sense of what I read, and this didn't make sense.

This quote from Wikipedia might make more sense:

"Sensor formats of digital cameras are mostly expressed in the non-standardized "inch" system as approximately 1.5 times the length of the diagonal of the sensor. This goes back to the way image sizes of video cameras used until the late 1980s were expressed, referring to the outside diameter of the glass envelope of the video camera tube. David Pogue of The New York Times states that "the actual sensor size is much smaller than what the camera companies publish – about one-third smaller." For example, a camera advertising a 1/2.7" sensor does not have a sensor with a diagonal of 0.37"; instead, the diagonal is closer to 0.26". Instead of "formats", these sensor sizes are often called types, as in "1/2-inch-type CCD.""

[NeilGratton]

Wide angle and small sensor are contradictions.

What makes you think that? I've got wide shots I'm really happy with from the Q with the 03 Fisheye - one example:
Sunrise | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[thibs]

With that sensor, yes. That's the only viable price point. I am seeing Nikon 1's and m43's below $350 with a kit now. The market space above US$250 is being occupied by larger sensor cameras with substantially better IQ.

And that only because you still think the only metric for deciding on a budget for a given camera is the sensor size. And you're wrong.
Of course if the optical quality is the only thing you need, you should buy a 1" or better yet APS-C mirrorless. I think everybody got that, quite a long time ago.
Can we move on ?